Mcthew

Play your own battlepack - remove generic CAs, battalions, hero and monster actions from your game. Perfectly legitimate according to GW.

I'm already dividing my factions into 'play nice with others' and 'hideously overpowered.' The latter my eldest son can use in tournaments. But not sure what anyone can learn in competitive matches for a year or so, given the changes that are coming. And that's without further Covid restrictions.

Ha - yep. Was just about to edit my post. You're right - I stand corrected! 😁

Every time I think this edition will be fine I realise there are broken parts to it that will need lots of fifixing. I'm lucky that I have access to multiple factions, including KO, CoS and Tzeentch. I also have Nighthaunt and boy are they looking good, much better than my Soulblight bros. For example, CA for a plus 1 save on ethereal units plus Deathless Spirits plus Mystic Shield makes them pretty Deathless all over!! Stick that on a reinforced unit of Chainrasps or Grimghasts and you get massive problems not seen in AoS 2.0. The only way to break that is to remove their ethereal abilities altogether. But that's Nighthaunt's thing. They're ghosts right? So many problems...

Reading the new HoS 3.0 article I suddenly had a horrible thought: Archaon/Gotrek/Sigvald + Heroic Action = 😱😭

So battalions are free and only one of them counts as a 1 drop?

They're not massive increases judging by the points costs in arguably the first AoS 3.0 battletome, Soulblight (caveat that with the fact this might change too as GW are notorious for getting these things wrong from the off or a badly joined up). I don't even think it will be points increases that causes problems, more the restrictions now on what you can or can't take. Older players will have experienced this before. New players will need to decide if they want to accept these restrictions on their previous investment or not. I suspect this might push players towards Narrative more. Not a bad thing really. After all, even GW have suggested players take control of the rules which is why Narrative exists. Matched play is for tournaments and for playing games with strangers; it's a set of common rules you both sign up to from the beginning of playing. If you don't like those rules, you play a Narrative game instead (or something else). And how many of us play against strangers or in tournaments on a regular basis? Less than you would think.

This is a good point. Given we are still in the clutches of a pandemic around the world, a major shift in Core rules isn't the best thing (but that's not GWs fault - this was planned and written pre-Covid). Players may not get the same game-time as they are used to, and getting their heads around a more complex system might not be for them. It'll be some time before a lasting opinion is formed once these rules land. I wonder how many players will kick matched play rules into touch and use narrative or homebrew to compensate?

Really like this. Encapsulates where I am right now. It won't take much for me to cancel my pre-order for Dominion, and makes me appreciate 2.0 more, which really is a simple, clean ruleset, faction rules aside. I wonder then if 2nd Edition players/groups will be a 'thing'? I certainly hope it will be on this forum as I edge closer to staying put on AoS 2.0.

What's a "battlepack"? Are we using new terminology now too?

Wouldn't mind that but how many starter sets include understrength units? Should say on the Dominion box "box contents might not be legal for Age of Sigmar 3.0" but I doubt they'll do that.

Well it might mean that unless the new SCE models in the Dominion boxset come as a minimum size of 3, then it limits how many of those you can field? Honestly I don't know if this is mysterious or just another irritation. Maybe undermanned units come with different coherency rules or something, otherwise what's the point?

But they're so cheap to field *sob*. I wouldn't be so miffed but Zombies get a 20 minimum size whilst Skellies can a messily 10. (And no, I don't think SBGL is a good tome to be honest, not even for 3.0).

Note to self: stop looking at existing battletomes with glee, thinking this is your time in the 3.0 sun. Yes, I'm talking to you Nighthaunt and Tzeentch. For what GW giveth they can (and do) just as easily taketh away.

Bye bye Deathrattle tarpits 😪

Of course, because lances are by every definition a close quarters weapon like a sword, or an axe, or a large fish.

Followed by a pointless article on Soulblight which all Soulblight players already know about if they have (had the misfortune of) buying the battletome. Do you think WarHamCom are reading this Forum and have been scared off now revealing anything remotely interesting for AoS 3.0😜?

Not sure unit sizes will have a big impact though... A unit of 20 hand gunners is still a potent threat with Unleash Hell, and that could be just one reinforcement point. Still getting my head around the reasons for the unit sizes. Is the anti-blob rule to reduce horde meta? Is it to reduce one/fewer drops happening in the game? Is it to force people to consider battalions to reduce drops? Is it because they're reducing the board size? Do they think it will make AoS a skirmish game? Or is it a cost thing? Will the number of models in a box go down while the price stays the same or goes up to make you think this is still good value for money on the tabletop? So many questions, and this is the first jump into the unknown we've experienced with AoS since it's conception. But it just feels like the wrong direction: blobs and more epic encounters were never a problem with AoS to begin with. So if it ain't broke why change it? And not fix the stuff that is broken?

It so is! Yet, therein lies the problem with AoS. The new rules, concentrating on smaller units, god units, monsters, smaller board size etc (if the leaks are all true, which they tend to be), points AoS towards a skirmish game, which we already have in Warcry. It's all very odd, and disjointed. What are GW trying to achieve here? Whomever is at the wheel of AoS is not doing a very good job, in my opinion (sorry if that person is reading this, but this will be constructive criticism!). My view from the outside, is this (please feel free to add or disagree!): - Aside from a few issues, AoS 2.0 was a good rule set. What broke those rules was not the core rules but the faction rules that were (and still are) problematic and slightly broken. AoS 2.0 also improved the lore from being a shambolic rambling through Ages of Myth, Chaos and then Sigmar in 1.0, to something resembling a coherent story and setting. - So far, from the leaks and some of the questionable lore writing, AoS 3.0 while not universally panned, has been divisive. Broken Realms had its moments, but was disjointed in some areas. Certainly not the worst lore, not the best either, and could've been better. The rules for AoS 3.0 border on the gimmicky, and do not address the faults of AoS 2.0 but makes those faults worse in many cases, while adding more problems and more complexity. While it is early days, AoS 3.0 factions will need massive re-writes and updates and FAQs to make this workable, and if rushed then it will be worse (we know this because GW has a habit of writing badly-rushed rules). However, leaving AoS 2.0 factions as is will make many unplayable under AoS 3.0. - "But it's just a game!" I hear you cry. Correct, it is. Plastic soldiers and dice. But... It is also a premium game. GW price hikes have made this the most expensive tabletop hobby around. With anything in life, if I'm paying premium prices, I expect premium content. GW has no room to manoeuvre when they are selling core books for £40 and requires an investment of between £400-800 per faction. That is the equivalent of an entertainment system (TV and console) of which you can get longer and more use out of (a general view). - Hyperbole is great, if it's correct. So far their claim to AoS 3.0 being "the best rules ever" is bordering on the embarrassing. It is an unfounded claim, and would be fine if the rules reveal so far were true. The fact here and other forums are looking at them with dismay means that GW either have the reveal strategy wrong, or they are so oblivious to what good rules are, they are not competent at rules writing or play testing. Either way, it doesn't look good, certainly from a business perspective. But that's ok, because... - Cursed City has made people panic. The debacle over Cursed City, and the hangover of Indomitus, means that those sitting on the fence will try to get a copy of Dominion even with shonky rules reveals. And that's not good either. This is not a £50 punt on something nice. This is a £125 outlay for an already expensive hobby. (Could be more though, right? We don't have the prices yet). For GW I wonder if they realise how much of a gamble this either intentional/accidentally-incompetent strategy is? Apart from excluding new players who won't risk this amount of money on AoS, if GW get this wrong, the pretty pictures and average lore in the core book won't save AoS. Even the models won't. While they look nice and may appeal to the model-centric hobbyist, how many of those hobbyists buy boxes by the truck load? It is fair to say it is the players who buy the most models because the game demands it, and if the game is broken by ill-advised rules, then it breaks the business model. How many people did GW lose when WFB exited the building? It must have hurt GW, but at least they could entice some back with AoS. What if they now break AoS? - Why get so annoyed about it? Because I've spent a few thousand pounds over the years on a hobby that has been fun and rewarding. But it's also a culture, and for many a big part of their lives. And I guess it's not anger, but passion. Plenty of other games systems have died and not have had the passion directed to keeping them alive. AoS is different, because there is this (true) community behind it. When you have people who are messing with your stuff in a way that spoils that fun and threatens that community, they should expect push back and criticism. - Or... This might all be fine after the dust settles. The rules might actually work. The factions might actually play better, even if the Warhammer Community site is showing the contrary (really, they need to get that sorted out - it's hardly a "community" either). So, there you go. A little negative, but these are things Games Workshop have in their power to remedy. A final note, GW are a business. If we want GW to take notice, we must treat them as a business and show no loyalty if they produce rubbish product. Likewise, GW will be rewarded with higher sales if Dominion and AoS 3.0 is the best set ever as they continually say (although this claim might be redacted on the Warhammer Community site at a later date folks - they have that in their locker too!). (Just to add - I've returned to the fence of where I am with Dominion. I may still pre-order, but that depends on being able to pre-order this. It might well be out of my hands, as it has been with Cursed City. In some ways, I'm cool with that. If Games Workshop don't wish me to invest in their products, that's up to them. )

Mad. Potentially in one round, they can fire 3 times?!! What are they using? 19th century rifles? I mean, how many FAQs will need to land on day one release? Some factions/units will be utterly unplayable, like the FG Handgunners. Or GW won't, and it will be utter chaos until GW rush out new battletomes for each faction (and then another battletome 12 months later because they got the first 3.0 battletome wrong - please see HoS for details 😛).

No, but they are. Truly. The best. Ever.

Does this count for both players? If so, you can use up all your CPs in your own phase, and then get another CP in the enemy hero phase. So on that basis, where is the big win for going 2nd in a turn? An extra CP for going 2nd is hardly an incentive to avoid double-turns if we're now handing them out like sweets. Thinking about, it makes going 2nd even more difficult. After all, you're having to second guess the use of CPs, whilst taking the initiative means a better chance at using all your CPs rather than losing unspent ones. Unless... are CAs effects now restricted to turns rather than rounds or until the next hero phase?

Ah. Gloomspite players, please join the Khorne players currently sobbing in the corner.

If I wanted to play a shooting game, I'd have invested in 40K. But I didn't. Actually, if I wanted to play a well thought out shooting game, I'd have invested in 40K. What we have now is amateur-hour shooting game masquerading as fantasy. This is not what I thought AoS would be. It's nudging it further into a system that doesn't really know what it wants to be. Is it steampunk? It's not even High Fantasy really. It might have been easier to call AoS 2.0 "Age of Nagash", and 3.0 "Age of Teclis Kragnos." Might have helped to know it was evolving from 'swords and sorcery', to 'blasters and buffoonery.'

You're right, it's context, and in reality on the tabletop it benefits only a handful of scenarios, or specific units. And that's the problem. This is a general command ability, and one that (as you might see from the previous posts) only appears to have one major use, outside of someone foolishly charging a non-shooting unit leaving the shooters able to pick you off. It is, as it stands, a completely unnecessary general command ability to include. So it begs the question, why include it? It makes more sense for it to be a specific CA for a faction, such as LRL, or maybe plague claws in a Pestilens faction. KO can use this as any of them can shoot, so it effectively buys a second round of shooting for a unit who may have already shot in that round. But for most other factions it is a pointless generic command ability. That GW has called this out as an example of the best rules writing, is problematic, when it is that divisive. It will also make the game dull if everyone is running KO or LRL lists because they are the only remotely competitive armies around. Even beers and pretzel gaming becomes dull if you're shot off the board by round 2 or 3. I am a KO player, by the way. And this, so far, is just plain embarrassing.